>>>Alpha-3 General Feedback [HotFix v66]<<<

[akd]

You are confusing realistic tactics and technology with the reductio ad absurdum of historic verisimilitude.  The former is possible with limitations.  It cannot be denied as fun simply because it objectively relates to reality.  In fact, it could be argued that the sandbox aspect of the game is only really fun if you face the same relationship between tactics and technology that existed historically and then get to make your own decisions in that context.

[Tousansons]

Either I m pretty dense and didn't understand what you just wrote or I wasn't clear and you missed my entire point. There is no denial of fun (I already agreed of it being pretty subjective), nor confusion between tactics and technology, I use them as exemples to prove the need of abstractions (of any type) in a video game environnement, especialy a more realistic one.

The use of technology to apply a tactic in a realistic game is often abstracted because the use of that technology doesn't fit the core gameplay of that game. This is why in armored brigade you don't "make" radio call, but the game abstract them in longer reaction time for your units. Or closer still, this is why in UA:D you don't use signals/radio to order a turn to your fleet, this is simply abstracted in easy to use mouse-clic or drag.

Am I wrong somewhere?

[akd]

Abstraction of human factors is necessary, especially command and control.  Abstraction (or extreme fudging based on consensus of “feel” or whoever shouts loudest) of factors like armor penetration, armor protection, accuracy and spotting is not.  It is actually a huge waste of time as it just leads to constant back and forth based on subjective feel (see post below). Better to make objective what can be objectively established, then shape abstraction and “feel” factor around elements that must be abstracted.

Edited December 22, 2019 by akd

[Accipiter]

Yo this is amazing! the change to armor and penetration as well as ship damage is much more noticable and makes everyting much more fun!

i love this hotfix! best changes yet imo. the only last big gripe i have left with the armor model now is that ship still remain unreasonably tanky when they are showing their bow or stern, because the game doesn't model transverse bulkheads. other than that, all the rest regarding armor feels much closer to where it sould be.

the accuracy increase for small guns/secondaries is great too! it may even be a bit too much now, but not sure yet, i need to test it more, either way its current level is still much closer to where it should be than before for sure!

oh, one more thing: now that torpedoes are so deadly (as they should be) i whould like to see reloads go away from deck-top torpedo tubes, i think now, even one salvo of torpedoes, as long as you take care to use it well, is more than enough to make even smaller ships a credible threat to big ones. underwater tubes can keep reloads as they had them in real life, and they typically can launch only 1 or 2, not a whole spread, so it's ok. if you really don't want to remove reloads, then i think at the very least the reload time should be VERY long, like 10-15mins or someting like that, so that a TB or DD can't actually just stay at point blank and reload multiple torpedo salvos, and actually needs to go out, wait, and come back later for another torpedo run.

keep up the good work.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Accipiter

[RedParadize]

@akd @Tousansons If I may interject:

The process of making a game is itself backward from reality. You start with the game concept and only then you start building up the mechanics and universe around it. Having said that. I have no doubt that the dev what to achieve the maximum level of realism... within their game concept and mean.

[akd]

Play the first academy mission "Target Practice" with light armament then come back and let us know how things "feel." (It is objectively absurd, but also “feels” wrong, or at least pointless.)

Edited December 22, 2019 by akd

[Tousansons]

37 minutes ago, akd said:

Abstraction of human factors is necessary, especially command and control.  Abstraction (or extreme fudging based on consensus of “feel”) of factors like armor penetration, armor protection, accuracy and spotting is not.  It is actually a huge waste of time. Better to make objective what can be objectively established, then shape abstraction and “feel” factor around elements that must be abstracted.

Now I clearly think this is you who are making rather unfortunate confusions.

I will take accuracy as an exemple, it's a hot topic right now:

In game, accuracy is determined by a number of factors. You can improve it in the ship designer by using better technologies. In battles you can improve it by reducing your speed, targetting something bigger, moving closer to the target (or wait for a quick hotfix :wink:). There is numerous external factors further affecting accuracy, target size, ship roll, target speed, smoke ect. In the future, crew quality could also play a role in the general accuracy of the ship guns. Despite all that, you don't "waste time" with accuracy in UA:D, the game calculate all of these things for you, it abstract the number crunching needed before calling a gun elevation/range/whatever (I m not an expert, don't bite me) because even if it wants to depict realistic naval battle between navies and wants to use historical values, it is not a gun battery simulation. In battles you are not "aiming", you let the game do that for you.

This is what I call abstraction. It as nothing to do with it being realistic or not. Its here to ensure something complex is more convenient and easier to use in the scope of a particular game.

The fact that as of now accuracy is busted as also nothing to do with the way its abstracted in game. This just means that the numbers used to calculate it are wrong and needs to be tweaked to more logical/realistic values.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Tousansons

[Skeksis]

Define "verisimilitude"...

1 hour ago, akd said:

Play the first academy mission "Target Practice" with light armament then come back and let us know how things "feel." (It is objectively absurd, but also “feels” wrong, or at least pointless.)

.

 

Really! using the WASD tutorial as reference! 😂 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Skeksis

[akd]

You really think the whole point of that mission is to teach you to click one time?  It didn't used to be...  Anyways, it should establish a baseline for the entire era.  It is essentially 1890 tech at 1890 engagement distance (with opportunities to modify one or two specific techs beyond the baseline).

Edited December 22, 2019 by akd

[Skeksis]

I'm thinking that most of the academy missions are not good references because of the mission modifiers, except "Extra Funds". 

Unless in the campaign there's a tech tree to apply such modifiers, but i doubt it.

[Teckelmaster]

The fun thing is: we can still have both games in one, by simply being able to influence the difficulty level/realism as in examples like: Silent Hunter III, the only game of that franchise i played for a significant time AND i think reasonably similar to use as an example. You want historic accuracy, make a switch, you want realistic sinking times, make a switch, you want higher tech, make a switch like „tech advantage“. Bam, one game, but two games.

Unfortunately it was absolutely impossible in this forum to bring up strategic „game-selling-ideas“, because a certain group of people did never ever leave an idea floating in the room without aggressively (in my oppinion) spamming historic material to „prove“ that this game CAN UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES be any different from their ideas of being realistic. And i dare saying, that maybe the devs will want to sell rather many copies, than a few. 
And by all that i mean, that actually BOTH approaches, let us call them arcadishfun and realismfun, can be done. In one game.

I currently prepare myself and buckle up, as i expect this to become an ideologic discussion again.

Teckelmaster out

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Teckelmaster

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, Teckelmaster said:

The fun thing is: we can still have both games in one, by simply being able to influence the difficulty level/realism

Yes, it seems that there should be ship modifiers applied at time of design and then overlaid with game preference modifiers (at some stage).

Edited December 22, 2019 by Skeksis

[Evil4Zerggin]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I'm thinking that most of the academy missions are not good references because of the mission modifiers, except "Extra Funds". 

Unless in the campaign there's a tech tree to apply such modifiers, but i doubt it.

I would be surprised if there didn't end up being such a tech tree. For example, how else would there be 15 levels of "Armor Quality" if there are only 7 armor types above Iron? It looks as if they have something like a Rule the Waves-type system with more emphasis on components rather than passive modifiers, but still not lacking the latter entirely.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Evil4Zerggin

[arkhangelsk]

4 hours ago, Teckelmaster said:

Unfortunately it was absolutely impossible in this forum to bring up strategic „game-selling-ideas“, because a certain group of people did never ever leave an idea floating in the room without aggressively (in my oppinion) spamming historic material to „prove“ that this game CAN UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES be any different from their ideas of being realistic. And i dare saying, that maybe the devs will want to sell rather many copies, than a few. 
And by all that i mean, that actually BOTH approaches, let us call them arcadishfun and realismfun, can be done. In one game.

Hello, "certain group of people" here (you see, we are provoked and called out all the time  ). I want the game to sell many copies as well. However, we have to remember what this game is billed as - "Realistic". I'll say it is important to nail that down first. Besides, the recent experience has proven how easy it is to tack on these options - months to get close to a working game, and (it seems) one week to throw together the hotfix. I really think we can delay talking about these options until the core is nice and polished. Also remember the Realistic is also a selling feature and with the current state, you can't even credibly tell a World of Warships player that this is more realistic. All he'll have to do is look at the stat cards of the big and little guns and he'll have his counterargument. Would you want to pay US$50 to "early-access" a game knowing of these stat cards?

Though really, I do see the allure of these things. Personally, I continue to recommend they revert to the pre-hotfix and work from there, but they should archive this one too. After the game goes to market, they can sell it as DLC #1: Small Guns Mod, US$5. As an option, it'll sell like hotcakes. Ideas like being able to kill battlecruisers with destroyer guns will suddenly look attractive ... as long as they are only an option that does not interfere with the main game.

[RedParadize]

I would swap "Realistic" and "historical" for "representative of reality" and "representative of history". The difference is subtitle form user point of view, but for the maker it is the difference between can and can't do.

Trust me, I work in the movie industry. (yes, ones of those that take all these outrageous shortcut!)

[Hangar18]

On 12/18/2019 at 11:02 AM, Piotr said:

Hi!

After testing changes in missions Speed basics 2 and undefended convoy. In both I went with CL 2inch and 4inch only. I feel like short range accuracy for small guns is now even to high - it's easy to get up to 100% on short distances which seems as unrealistic as previous unability to hit anything at point blank range. Also now, when much more of shells reach their target it feels like they are doing to much damage - destroyer was sunk after 10hits - 4 came from 4ich guns and 6 from 2inchers (this were surprisingly devastating). As far as I know 3ich gun in first part od XX century was already considered as insufficient even against early destroyers. Poor transport convoy was totally anihilated in just few minutes. I think even this ships were a bit harder to sink with just small caliber guns. 

Also I feel like adding some accuracy supression penalty for being under fire would increase significance of secondary baterries without making them to overpowered in terms of their destruction abilities.

cheers

Piotr

accuracy for main battery did not change, only that of the secondary battery.

[Hangar18]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:02 PM, RedParadize said:

Humm. isn't 42" penetration a bit high for a 14" mk 4 at 10km?

uh by a small amount... but iirc, the in game values are for iron.

its about 3x the expected value.

To give you an idea, thats about double what the mk6 16" guns found on the Iowa will penetrate. A modern HEAT warhead would struggle to go through that...

[Teckelmaster]

Hello,

@arkhangelsk I am of different oppinion on that. I never played wows, as i would never throw myself into a game, that is basically online mp only.

But to make basic difficulty settings a payed dlc? That is a no go. At least for me.

You insist that this game can only be played one way, because it otherwise is too much work on programming (if i understand correctly), i insist i rather wait a month longer and get a complete, polished game, that offers more options about the way it can be played and skips on the embarrassment, to be rushreleased, halffinished, only to be completed by dlc, that potentially even is to be paid for.

I refer to the difficulty system of silent hunter iii, which had a decent reputation in terms of realism, yet offered options for newer/less experienced or less hardcore players. Please let me know, what exactly you think might be wrong with that, as i do not think it breaks realism, if you simply choose 100% difficulty, you still get the game that was advertised. It only makes the entry to the game easier or for casual players can be a lot more attractive. I think i really missed out, why, other than programming time, this could be problematic. This way you could still go hardcore and be proud of your achievements. Or you could go easy and just have relaxed and good time.

But sh3 is also an example for a rushed game that was near unplayable in retail, until several patches were rolled out and ultimately the community contributed mods, that made it awesome. This is something i would want ua d to not be, rushed out. But that part depends on the skills and qualitysensation of the devs. And maybe a bit on our input. So i think we produce reasonable input. I, and i think i am not alone, would love to see a dynamic realism/difficulty system more than a mechanic system, that only changes numbers in hp and armor, for example.

Sorry for the long answer. 
I hope it was not too repetitive.

 

[arkhangelsk]

I hadn't played Silent Hunter but I don't think the situation right now can be considered any kind of "Easy Mode". Sure, I guess it is fun (and easy) when it is you slicing apart some AI battlcruiser with your destroyer and you might even take a wierd pride in it because it's still not quite like any old destroyer can do it - you have to exploit the current mechanics a bit. But the enemy gets these modifiers too. Sure, the AI might never optimize its design or tactics well enough for one of their DDs to do it, but with these settings one day two or three DDs might kill someone's battlecruiser, and they'll be saying "Destroyers OP, plz nerf."

TortugaPower definitely did not find this new Hotfix to be "Easy Mode", and I know that people have complained about how Mission 10 got harder after this Hotfix.

But Easy Mode and this kind of thing (if sold as a DLC variant mode) share a similarity. Ultimately, they are offshoots, little twigs off the main trunk. The main trunk is what determines the quality of the game, and right now all effort should be spent on improving it. If you have a good main trunk, these offshoots would be easy. But if you spent time on these offshoots now to the detriment of the main game (remember we got so much work to do and so much to balance - we hadn't even seen a shred of the campaign yet), the whole game including these by-modes will suffer.

What might Easy Mode be in this context anyway? I see you said "dynamic" rather than "mechanic", but in concrete terms what can be changed? You get more money in the campaign? Your hit chance all go x1.2? Torpedo speed 30% advantage (with no disadvantages)? These are probably easy modules (probably easier than even this Hotfix). They can just throw you a bunch of SPMBT type sliders at the end - go ahead and add whatever your pride and conscience will allow you to. When you get arrogant the slider might even go in reverse, to give these advantages to the computer.

So right now, I'm simply not worried about these things - go ahead and tack them on if you like. But after the main game gets done (I am really worried now). If I have my druthers it'll go out bare-frills and after any last minute bugs (they will always be there) are caught we can have Version 1.1 with the Easy Mode. I think that people should try this game, meant to be realistic, at the original difficulty.

Besides, let us be honest here. Does this game need an Easy Mode? I don't know how the Campaign would go, but for the already released material other than DD vs TB in Alpha-2 nothing should stump the player more than once or twice before he learns what needs to be learned and beats the game on at least one of the options. At worst maybe he can't make it because of things like the Indestructible Destroyed Objects, but even then he'll still have won in the practical sense and surely we expect those to be fixed before release, do we? (And that's yet another reason we shouldn't be thinking too hard about frills just yet)
'
And if the little guns aren't working fast enough for you ... sigh, there is always Time Compression, is there? When they optimize this game a bit more, they should be able to let you select any time compression at your peril.

Finally: honest question. While I can just about understand the thrill of using a DD (even if you know it's effectively a cheat) to kill a BC, what's so fun about BB secondaries anyway? There are many definitions of fun, but generally being free of hassle and being spectacular help. So, instead of conveniently and quickly slapping on 3 turrets and then going out to blast destroyers to spectacular oblivion, you agonize over how much armor, speed and main gun to give up so you can stick some of those souped-up secondaries on, and god is their action still unspectacular - you can hardly see the little rounds and there is no big boom. Just ships flooding and dying unceremoniously. Further, all you have to do is read the stats of your little guns to know you are living in Fantasy land, as obvious as if CHEAT MODE kept blinking on the screen. Even for the fun crowd I just don't get what part was "fun".

Edited December 23, 2019 by arkhangelsk
Typo correction andtrim

[Teckelmaster]

@arkhangelsk

i was never talking about secondary guns or current balance issues in THIS context, i currently only talk about ingame settings, i wish the devs at least give a thought and maybe a statement to. As i think it is the right time to think about what might make sense to implement in the future. But i do argue, that difficulty settings are a mandatory thing to a final release version, which is due in summer 2020?! In my oppinion it is easier to do things right in the first place, rather than work it over and over after release. I do not want to see such things in alpha 4, i just say it might be interesting to consider for the endproduct.

 In the current state i do not see stats and gun performance as final, so i say it is surely of the scale, but the devs will fix it, i am sure. But the basic structure of the game needs to be thought through, they need to have a final idea, you cannot get good results by developing the ideas for the product as you already did half programming. So i tell my ideas, when they come up. Maybe one of them is usefull and no waste if time. Maybe not. But i can not know, before i get input. What you say and what i say is not entirely different, i believe.

Shakehands?

 

[arkhangelsk]

Before we get any further, difficulty settings will imply some part of the game is currently too hard. What will you say that is? I am truly puzzled because as I said above, of the finished portions, there is almost nothing that should pose an unbeatable or even particularly painful challenge, and I say this as a (at-best) Low Average player. What did you find too hard?

[Tousansons]

Options tweaking some in game stats or different difficulty options in the campaign are not unreasonnable. For exemple It already exists in Ultimate General: Civil War, or in more complex games, this could range from easier to play to easier to use (You can choose the number of days in a turn in GG: War in the pacific). In the end this would indeed add some value to the overall experience while still being options.

This doesn't mean you have to add them right now, this would be ridiculous and I don't think this was ever Teckelmaster intention.

@arkhangelsk Why are you on a crusade against this hotfix, And why are you making your damnest to confuse everything with the final release?

You spend a lot of time in long winded posts, fighting against an imaginary crowd who wants nothing but arcade fun without realistic numbers. The topic in its vast majority want some change in the accuracy and in the damage model and the various feedback already pointed the problems. You are losing yourself here with the tale of "arcade DLC" or "they can't show that in their promotion" and your obsession with reverting to a previous alpha.

You're here to test and give feedback. If things are not good, you are right to point it (as we all did in different ways) I m confident a lots of value in accuracy and in the damage model will change in the next few patches. Playing the doomsayer is not a good way to achieve these changes.

 

[arkhangelsk]

Let me give you my point of view.

There has been a spat about technical vs tactical accuracy. Now, it is tautological that if you have true technical accuracy, tactical accuracy should inevitably follow. In fact, if the model is 100% accurate technically and it diverges from your tactical expectations, it's likely those expectations that have to change, not the model. However, it is possible to have reasonable tactical accuracy without technical accuracy. For example, the weak torpedoes are compensated by the fact you have more of them, they don't dud, and it is a little easier to hit with them so overall you are expending a suitable number of torpedoes for the results. That would be an example of tactical accuracy without technical accuracy.

And Alpha-2 is basically at that fine state - the tactical accuracy is so on point that in DD vs TB, even the cheat menu won't help you (unless you give yourself more tech).You have to use the doctrinally recommended solution of using the DDs to screen against the TBs while your BB takes on the CAs. If you try and build some same-cost CLs or a CA, you flunk. You send your DDs to torp the CAs. Fail. By a small margin, but you do. You use your BB to help against the TBs, ignoring its task of holding down the CA, fail. If you do the doctrinal thing and are very diligent in controlling your destroyers, you'll make it. Just. If that's not tactical accuracy, I don't know what it is.

The clear next step is to increase technical accuracy while retaining a tactical accuracy no worse than Alpha-2. If we analogize this to battleship shooting, we have a bracket. Not a straddle, but it's a bracket and all we have to do is narrow the bracket down until we get straddles and then hits. Does that make sense?

So, why are we suddenly changing the aimpoint to blast a patch of ocean 5 kilometers away? Sure, we can try to correct back on target from that point. But don't you think it'll be much faster, and much more likely to be successful, if we just discard this shoot and go back to the old shooting solution which at least bracketed the target?

That's all I am saying. This thing is clearly not technically accurate - all you need to do is read the stat cards. And anything that can allow a DD to gut a BC clearly has issues in tactical accuracy. So, what you do think.

[Marshall99]

I think this hotfix is good, but in my opinion, there is one thing that i don't like at all. Battleships are like paperships. Why? Because when I got a hit on the main belt, 3 compartments are fully flooded. I think this is just too much. Again, this is only my opinion!

[Teckelmaster]

I do not find things too hard, i find them unbalanced. Currently. And not all over the board. I see it as current state of developmental progress.

About difficulty:

I play games in different moods, sometimes i like it challenging, those days this game is too easy. Some days i wanna crash the enemy as if i was 300 centuries from the future, then i just want to steamroll around. These days i find it too complex.

I speak for myself when i say:

The game is good, if it had one ruleset for difficulty and realism. It is even better if i can adjust it to my situational mood and feelings. I have a difficult and highly responsible job, sometimes i do not need stress of competition and want to simply blast those guns away. But usually, most of the time, i want the challenge. But to a degree, that is still not sweatening.

so i can either achieve both in one game. Or play different games. But as i think this is representative for more than one of different kinds of players out there, i thought input for the devs could be welcome. 
On the other hand i do not completely understand what bothers you about the possibility of difficulty settings.

 

I will from my side end this discussion now, as i do not want to flood this topic with difficulty settings instead of 5 inch guns. I made my suggestion and gave arguments for it. Now it is the devs turn to decide where they go.

Teckelmaster out

Edited December 23, 2019 by Teckelmaster